Appeal No. 1999-0956
Application No. 08/584,084
reason for rejecting the claims that the examiner considers claim
28 as amended to require the leading end section to bodily shift
in its entirety crosswise relative to the first direction of
movement. In our view, this interpretation of “transverse to” is
strained and fails to take into account the well established
maxim that claim language must be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art.3 Unlike the examiner, we do not consider the meaning
of the word “transverse” added by amendment to claim 28 to be
inconsistent with the pivoting movement of the leading end
section as it moves about the first fold line.4 Instead, we view
the description of the motion of the leading end section as being
“transverse” (i.e., crosswise) to the first direction of movement
as being merely another, albeit somewhat broader, way of setting
forth the motion of the leading end section as it pivots about
the first fold line. Because our view of the claimed subject
matter differs fundamentally from that of the examiner, we cannot
3See, for example, In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d
1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
4The word “transverse” may mean “situated or lying across:
crosswise.” Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary,
Riverside Publishing Co., copyright © 1984 by Houghton Mifflin
Co.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007